Computationally-efficient resource allocation

ABSTRACT

A method to associate a set of first entities to a set of second entities, e.g., computing jobs to processors, agent teams to workspace resources within a physical location, or the like. The NG is seeded using a force directed graph (FDG), whose “seed” particles represents the agents and their relative interconnectedness. The FDG is first brought into an equilibrium state to define a solution space. A relative coordinate system of the FDG solution space is then translated to a number of vertices represented in the NG, and then an initial seeding of the seed particles in the NG (based on their relative positions in the FDG solution space) is carried out. A search is then performed. During the search, each seed vertex releases its embedded agents to adjacent vertices to enable the agents to search for and achieve a required count. During this process, the seed particles grow to the desired size (with their constituent first entities then located at the NG vertices) to complete the agent-to-resource allocation process.

BACKGROUND Technical Field

This application relates generally to computer-based simulations whosecomputations are distributed across processors in a computing cluster.

Brief Description of the Related Art

Computer simulations have become a useful tool for the mathematicalmodeling of many varied types of systems in the natural and socialsciences, and in engineering. The simulation of a system is representedas the running of the system's computer model, where the model comprisesthe algorithms and equations used to capture the behavior of the systembeing modeled Simulations are executed as computer programs, and theseprograms range is size and their computational requirements. Some arelarge-scale programs that run for long periods of time on a cluster ofnetwork-accessible computers (processors). In the latter case, suchprograms typically have large datasets and computational demands. Onecommon approach to processing a simulation in this context involvespartitioning the tasks required by the simulation across multiplecomputing nodes in the cluster. While this approach reduces thecomputational demands imposed on any individual processor, overallsystem performance is unsatisfactory (e.g., in terms of processingefficiency, cost, reliability, etc.) because there is often acomputational requirement that individual task(s) communicate with oneanother. When tasks that need to communicate are located on differentprocessing nodes, however, communications between nodes must occur,sometimes across a network. Inter-node communications introducelatencies that often impact system performance negatively.

For datasets that are structured as graphs, it is known to partition thegraph dataset using graph partitioning techniques. In this context, ithas also been proposed to provide graph partitioning algorithms that canexecute efficiently in a computing cluster, typically by attempting tominimize inter-node communications. While these known approaches areuseful, there remains a need to improve computational efficiency of acomputing cluster on which large graph datasets execute.

The technique of this disclosure addresses this and other deficienciesin the prior art.

BRIEF SUMMARY

According to one aspect, the subject matter herein describes acomputationally-efficient method to associate a set of first entities toa set of second entities, wherein a second entity corresponds to avertex in a network graph (NG). The method begins by associating agrouping of first entities with a seed node of a set of seed nodes, eachseed node having an attribute set. The set of seed nodes are configuredinto a force directed graph (FDG), which provides for a physics(particle)-based solution. In particular, the seed nodes are configuredwith respect to one another according to attractions or repulsionsderived from the seed node attribute sets. The force directed graph isbrought into an equilibrium state to define a solution space. Therelative coordinate system of the FDG solution space is then translatedto a number of vertices represented in the network graph, and then aninitial seeding of the seed nodes in the network graph (based on theirrelative positions in the FDG solution space) is carried out. A localsearch is then performed. During the local search, each seed vertexreleases its embedded agents (to adjacent vertices in the network graph)to enable the agents to search for and achieve their required count (thenumber of first entities in the particular grouping). During the searchprocess, the seed nodes grow to the desired size (with their constituentfirst entities then located at the NG vertices) to complete the firstentity-to-second entity allocation process.

The mapping of the relative coordinate system of the FDG solution spaceto the number of vertices represented in the network graph is enabledusing an initial diffusion operation. This resulting coordinate map(e.g., an RGB-based (255, 255, 255) color mapping) creates the basis forupdates from the FDG-solution to pass directly to place seed agents onthe network graph. This is desirable, as it is quite likely that new SAswill be added or deleted, or that SA counts will change. Should a new SAbe added/deleted, or should an individual SA count change, the FDGprovides a very efficient way to re-seed only the impacted SAs in theNG, after which the local search is then re-run. This approach may alsoleverage a history of the prior resource-to-vertices assignments toachieve a new solution requiring the fewest possible changes to theprevious agent-to-resource assignments.

Seeding the NG with the n-body FDG provides improved computationalefficiency and, in particular, by avoiding random seeding, as well aslocal neighbor searching with respect to one or more regions in the NGthat otherwise would provide substantially equally-fit solutions. Thus,the technique provides significant computationally efficiencies in termsof using less processor and memory resources, thereby reducing the costand increasing the processing efficiency of the overall simulationtechnique.

In one embodiment, the resources (the second entities) are a set ofcomputing entities (e.g., processors) in a computing cluster. The seednodes correspond to computing jobs that require execution. In anotherembodiment, the resources (the second entities) are a set of physicalresources, e.g., located in a physical location such as an officeenvironment. In this alternative embodiment, the seed nodes correspondto teams of agents that require workspace resources (e.g., desks, etc.).

The foregoing has outlined some of the more pertinent features of thesubject matter. These features should be construed to be merelyillustrative. Many other beneficial results can be attained by applyingthe disclosed subject matter in a different manner or by modifying thesubject matter as will be described.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the subject matter and theadvantages thereof, reference is now made to the following descriptionstaken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 depicts a representative network graph (NG) comprising a clusterof nodes and their relative inter-node connectivity to one another;

FIG. 2 provides detailed depiction of the network graph shown in FIG. 1,wherein each node in the NG comprises a set of processing units (e.g.,processors) located at respective vertices, as well as their relativeintra-node connectivity within the node;

FIG. 3 depicts a representative two-dimensional (2D) coordinate spacefor the NG of FIG. 2 and in which a physics-based force directed graph(FDG) will be solved to create a bijection according to a first aspectof this disclosure;

FIG. 4 represents an initial seeding of the vertices of the NG of FIG. 2by coordinates derived from the representative 2D coordinate space shownin FIG. 3;

FIG. 5 represents the completed seeding of the vertices of the NG ofFIG. 2 by the coordinates derived from the representative 2D coordinatespace shown in FIG. 3;

FIG. 6 depicts a seed agent (SA) node that represents a population ofembedded agents that are being assigned to a set of physical resourcesin a space allocation problem that is addressed by the force directedgraph (FDG) network graph (NG)-seeding technique of this disclosure;

FIG. 7 depicts a portion of a FDG depicting a group of SA nodes andtheir interactions based on gravity-type forces in a physics simulation;

FIG. 8 depicts a FDG brought into equilibrium in a solution space usinga physics-based simulation;

FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B depict a physics-based simulation of the packing ofthe SA nodes from the FDG based on their embedded agent count(s);

FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B depict a translation of a relative coordinatesystem of the FDG solution space in FIG. 9B to the vertices in thenetwork graph and, in particular, how that SA nodes are assignedcoordinates using their resting locations in the FDG solution pace;

FIG. 11 depicts the partitioning of the NG after executing a localsearch operation seeding of the SAs on the NG vertices using theircorresponding coordinates;

FIG. 12 depicts a result of executing multi-agent algorithms (namely,diffusion, node swapping, contraction and expansion), wherein therequired number of vertices are populated by each embedded agent group;

FIG. 13A and FIG. 13B depict how seed coordinate values of the occupyingagents update the coordinates of the underlying NG vertices; and

FIG. 14 depicts an implementation environment in which the techniques ofthis disclosure may be practiced.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As used herein, a network graph G used for allocating first entities tosecond entities is denoted as G=(V, E), as a collection of vertices Vand undirected edges E. As will be described, and according to thetechnique of this disclosure, an undirected graph and, in particular, aforce directed graph (FDG), is used as a seeding algorithm for solving afirst entity-to-second entity allocation problem in acomputationally-efficient manner. As will be described, a FDG drawingalgorithm models the graph drawing problem as a physics n-body system inwhich the nodes (of the FDG) act as particles, while edges thereofrepresent interactions between the particles. Thus, the FDG is sometimesreferred to herein as a “particle system.” As will be described, oncethe network graph is seeded from the FDG, the system is then left toevolve in the presence of “forces” that can be either attractive orrepulsive depending on the nature of the edges.

The particular nature of the “first” and “second” entities is dependenton what the network graph represents. In a first embodiment, the NGrepresents a distributed computing network, wherein each node of the NGpreferably represents a processing unit or single multi-core processor,and wherein an edge in the NG represents a communication betweenprocessing units or multi-core processors. In effect, in this embodimentthe NG represents a processor communication graph for the distributedcomputing network. In this context, edges typically have differentvalues (e.g., lengths) representing communication speeds. Edgesconnecting processors in a cluster of computers allow for fastcommunication, whereas edges joining distinct clusters of computers aremuch slower. Every additional slow edge needed for inter-processcommunication comes at a penalty in performance.

In this example scenario, it is assumed that the computational problemto be solved by the NG is dynamic scheduling of one or more computingjobs (workloads or tasks) to the processing units represented by the NGnodes, preferably in a manner to minimize a degree of separation betweenthose nodes with inter-job dependencies. Dynamic scheduling of jobs tonodes (and thus processors) in the distributed computing network assumesthat there are a set of jobs, wherein each job requires a number ofprocessors for a length of time. The scheduling needs to take intoaccount whether the jobs are dependent on each other. These dependenciestypically are determined by one or more “attributes” associated with ajob. In the distributed computing context, an attribute may be givenprocessing requirement such as a (1) a data retrieval (from an externalstorage), (2) a shared sub-process, (3) a data share, and (4) othermetadata, such as a frequency, timing or priority of a data computation.Attributes often are based on historical data such as a history or logof prior inter-process communication(s), and they may be static or (moretypically) evolving, e.g., based on a near history of data use. Jobsthat share attributes are sometimes referred to herein as dependentjobs. Generally, the less time it takes dependent jobs to communicatewith one another the less latency in the distributed computing system.For this reason, and to improve computational efficiency, typically itis desirable to place dependent jobs in positions (i.e., with particularprocessors) that are the least number of edges away from one anotherwithin the processor communication graph. Such placement is sometimesreferred to herein as graph partitioning.

In another example embodiment, the NG represents a physical space, suchas a building having available workspace, and the scheduling probleminvolves scheduling the first entities (people) to physical resources(e.g., work areas) within the building. In this scenario, the firstentity is an “agent” (a person), and he or she is associated with aworkgroup (or team) of people that are working together to achieve atask. Thus, the team is analogous to the computing job as describedabove in the first embodiment. In this embodiment, the team has one ormore attributes, e.g., (1) expertise or skill of the individual agents,(2) a task classification (e.g., product category, market category,regulatory restriction, etc.), and the like. In this scenario, it isassumed that the team can be more effective in completing the job athand if the team collaborates with other team(s), perhaps those withcomplementary expertise, work experience, product or marketing goals,etc. Thus, in this scenario the physical placement of teams within thebuilding may seek to optimize that collaboration, e.g., by placing suchteams physically near one another. Conversely, if teams are working onprojects with different requirements (e.g., regulatory requirements), itmay be desirable to locate those teams apart from one another. Thus, inthe context of this alternative embodiment, and instead of processors(as in the first embodiment described above), the NG nodes representteams (groups of people working together), whereas edges between andamong nodes represent degrees to which teams are associated to oneanother. As in the distributed computing example, however, a goal of thegraph partitioning is to minimize a degree of separation between nodeswith inter-job dependencies.

Generalizing, a domain decomposition approach to problem partitioningtypically involves first decomposing the data associated with a problem.If possible, the data is divided into small pieces of approximatelyequal size. Next, the computation that is to be performed ispartitioned, typically by associating each operation with the data onwhich it operates. This partitioning yields a number of tasks, eachcomprising some data and a set of operations on that data. An operationmay require data from several tasks. In such case, communication(namely, inter-process communication (IPC)) is required to move databetween tasks, and a goal is to minimize such communication.

With the above as background, reference is now made to FIG. 1, whichdepicts a representative network graph (NG) 100 comprising a cluster ofnodes 102 and their relative inter-node connectivity to one another. Inthis example, the distributed computing embodiment is described,although the technique applies with respect to the alternativeembodiment (work team allocation). In this embodiment, and as has beendescribed, the nodes 102 represents processing clusters (or moregenerally sets of processing units), and nodes communicate with oneanother over inter-node communication paths depicted as NG edges 104.FIG. 2 provides a detailed depiction of the network graph shown in FIG.1, wherein each node 202 of the NG 200 comprising a set of processingunits (e.g., processors) located at respective vertices 206 within thenode. Vertices within a node 202 communicate with one another, accordingto an intra-node communication (represented by a line 208 betweenvertices within a node). Thus, FIG. 2 depicts both the inter-nodecommunications (edges) 204, as well as the relative intra-nodecommunications 208 within the node, i.e., between and among the vertices206 of the node. In the alternative embodiment (the work teamallocation), each node 102 in FIG. 1 represents a team (or “set”) ofagents, and the edges 104 represent team dependencies; thus, in FIG. 2,the vertices 206 within a team node 202 typically represent physicalworkspace resources, such as desks, that may be assigned to the agentswithin a particular team. Of course, the topology and number ofnodes/vertices shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 are merely representational.

According to the technique of this disclosure, FDG seeding of the NG isimplemented to facilitate scheduling of the first entities to the secondentities, preferably in a manner that minimizes inter-node communicationbetween and among graph nodes, while as the same time maximizingintra-node communication between and among vertices within a particularnode. While the above-identified use cases (distributed computing, andagent-to-physical resource mapping) take advantage of this approach, anyscheduling problem that can be configured into a partitioned networkgraph may implement the FDG-seeding process, which is now described.FIG. 3 depicts a representative two-dimensional (2D) coordinate space300 for the NG (reference numeral 100, in FIG. 1, and numeral 200 inFIG. 2) and in which a physics-based force directed graph (FDG) isdesired to be and will be solved. The solution space 300 istwo-dimensional, but this is not a limitation. FIG. 4 represents aninitial seeding of the vertices of the NG 200 of FIG. 2 by coordinatesderived from the representative 2D coordinate space 300 shown in FIG. 3.FIG. 5 represents the completed seeding of the vertices of the NG 200 ofFIG. 2 by the coordinates derived from the representative 2D coordinatespace 300 shown in FIG. 3. This process is sometimes referred to hereinas “bijection,” and the details for this process follow below.

FIG. 6 depicts a Seed Agent (SA) node 600, which is the basic componentof the FDG. As noted above, the first entity-to-second entity allocationproblem involves allocating computing jobs to processors, or agents tophysical resources, or other such allocation problems. For illustrativepurposes, the agent-to-physical resource allocation problem is depictedhere. This use case is merely for exemplary purposes. Thus, and in thiscontext, each SA particle 600 represents a population of embedded agents(A) 602, wherein each agent needs to be assigned to a resource vertex Vin the network graph (NG). In this example, and as depicted in the table605, it is assumed that there are twenty-eight (28) different seedagents, and each seed agent has an associated agent count representingthe capacity of that seed agent. As will be seen, a seed agent 600 actsas a particle in a physics n-body system. In that system, spring-typeedges are created between pairs of particles if an interaction exists,and the interaction can either be a positive (an “attraction”) ornegative (a “repulsion”). Each SA particle 600 has a set of attributes604 (e.g., identified as {z1, z2, z3}) that drive the attractions andrepulsions to other SA particles in the physics-based system. There maybe additional attributes (and the values associated with theseattributes will depend on the allocation problem). FIG. 7 depicts aportion 700 of the FDG depicting a group of SAs 702 attracting (solidlines) and repulsing (dashed lines) based on gravity-type forces in aphysics-based simulation. Dashed lines indicate that the particles haveno need to communicate with one another. The attractions and repulsionsresult from the SA particle attributes 704. FIG. 8 depicts a FDG 800brought into equilibrium (sometimes referred to herein as being“frozen”) using a physics-based simulation. The objective is to reducecrossing edges and equally fill the solution space 802, which isdepicted in this example as a square. The solution space is depictedhere as two-dimensional (2D) for convenience of illustration, but thespace may be three-dimensional (3D) or even “n”-dimensional.

In this modeling technique, the “strength” of a spring is higher if theSA-to-SA particle interaction is two-way as opposed to only one-way(e.g., from particle A to particle B, but not from B to A). Positiveinteractions require the spring to find a resting length vector that hasa short length/magnitude relative to the extents of the overall n-bodysolution space 802. Conversely, negative interactions require the edgeor vector to have a relatively long length/magnitude relative to theoverall n-body solution space. As depicted in FIG. 8, the n-bodysolution space is defined by a boundary 802 (a solution space) withinwhich all the particles are contained. To keep the particles separatedand to avoid collapse of the n-body system, an electric type force(attractive or repulsive) is used to separate all particles. Attractionsare indicated by solid lines; repulsions are indicated as dotted lines.The mass of the particle in the FDG is determined by the number ofembedded agents represented by the SA (the particle). In addition,preferably a central gravity type-force, which is proportional to themass of the particles, is used to help the springs influence heavierparticles, and to provide for a more uniform distribution of particles.The FDG solution space shown in FIG. 8 needs to be “filled.” To thisend, the solution space should optimize a ratio of edge lengths betweenstrong affinities/attractions, weak affinities/attractions, andrepulsions. Further, edge lengths of all the strong affinities need tobe shorter than all the edge lengths of weak affinities, and the lengthof all repulsive edges need to be larger than the lengths of all typesof affinities.

FIGS. 9A and 9B depict a physics-based simulation of the packing of theSAs based on their embedded agent counts, shown in the table. Thisprocess happens concurrently with the process of filling the FDGsolution space in FIG. 8. These counts depicted in the table in FIG. 9Aare merely exemplary. In this example, and as noted, there aretwenty-eight (28) seed agents with a collective embedded agent count of100 agents to be allocated. In one embodiment, a circle packingalgorithm is used to grow the circles to a size representative of theirembedded population relative to the total count of vertices available inthe NG (not shown). In a 3D embodiment, this operation may be carriedout with a sphere packing algorithm, and a similar operation couldextend to n-dimensions. In this process, the mass of each SA node isdetermined by the relative size of its embedded agent group. The mass ofan SA node impacts its local edge length calculation with its paired SAnodes; thus, and as depicted SAs with larger embedded agent groups havelarger surrounding space. The mass of an SA particle and the degree ofthe node's movement is inversely proportional; thus, the higher themass, the less its movement. FIGS. 10A and 10B depict the SA nodes beingassigned coordinates using their resting locations in the FDG solutionspace. As depicted, the centroid of each particle is assigned acoordinate value (a seeding location), with the results seedingcoordinates identified in the table 1000.

After the FDG is created and processed as described, the next step is tomap the extents of the coordinates contained with the FDG solution spaceto the vertices of the network graph NG that is to be used to solve thefirst entity-to-second entity allocation problem. FIG. 11 depicts theresult of this process. Various computational approaches can be used forthis purpose. One preferred approach is to take coordinates along theboundary of the n-body solution space as well as some coordinates fromwithin the solution space, and then apply these coordinatesproportionally to select vertices on the network graph. A K-meanstechnique to accomplish this operation is described in detail below.After these coordinates are applied, preferably a diffusion algorithm isthe applied. The diffusion algorithm is one that has a time-basedparameter that supports a numerical integration or Laplacian operatoracross neighboring NA vertices. Together, these operations result in theassignment of the extents of the range of coordinates represented in then-body solution across the vertices of the network graph. At the end ofthis mapping, the NG vertices have a range of coordinate valuesclosely-related to the range of coordinate values contained by then-body solution space. As will be described, this mapping creates a wayfor updates from the n-body solution (which may occur, for example, whenthere are changes or updates to the agent population being mapped) to bepassed directly to the follow-on step (explained below) of seeding theagents on the network group.

The following provides additional details regarding the above-describedmapping operation that is used to translate the relative coordinatesystem of the FDG solution space to the desired number of vertices (inthis example, 100) of the NG. In this approach, preferably a K-meanssolution is used as a bijective function to help associate the FDGsolution space to the physical network graph. This solution is nowdescribed.

Assume a Red (R), Green (G), Blue (B) 3D space with values 0-255 on eachof the three (x, y and z) axes. The FDG is resolved in this RGB cube.The first step is to “metricize” the full range of RGB values (i.e.,from 0,0,0 to 255,255,255) to the full extent of the physical networkgraph. To do this, the K-means solution takes the RGB values of theeight (8) corners of the cube (0,0,0; 0,255,0; 0,255,255; 255,255,255;255,0,0; 255,255,0; 0,0,255; 255,0,255). K-means is then used to breakthe full volume of the RGB cube into regions (clusters) that, inproportion, relate to the regions of the physical network graph. Forexample, if the network graph represents a building with eight (8)floors, the RGG cube is broken into eight (8) K-means partitions. Thecenter point of each of these partitions is then recorded (as one of theinternal solution space coordinates described above). Once thesecoordinates are identified, the eight (8) corner values (in thisexample) and the center points are then placed on specific nodes acrossthe physical network graph, and then the diffusion algorithm is executedto grow the full range of color across all nodes of the network graph.As a result, each node on the network graph thus has a starting RGBvalue (its base color, or DNA) that represents a color range from (0,0,0to 255,255,255). After running the diffusion algorithm, the seed agentsare then placed on the nodes with the closest RGB (DNA) value. When thesystem is brought into equilibrium, each SA has an RGB value (e.g.,104,56,221) representing its respective coordinates, and SA pairs thatare close in the FDG solution have similar RGB colors (i.e., theirvector magnitude will be close).

For illustrative purposes, FIGS. 3, 4 and 5 depict a sequence used tomap the coordinates of the FDG solution space to the network graph usinga diffusion algorithm. In particular, FIG. 3 depicts coordinates of theFDG solution space as well as the vertices and edges of the networkgraph. FIG. 4 depicts the use of control coordinates from the FDGsolution space to seed regions of the network graph. FIG. 5 depicts theresult of translating/mapping each control coordinate to the networkgroup through the diffusion process. In other words, FIGS. 3-5 depict a2D example of how the mapping operation is used to map the relativecoordinate system of the FDG solution space to the 100 vertices of theNG. The relative RGB values are shown on the left side (within the FDGsolution space boundary), and the relative mappings are shown on theright side. The approximation translation uses a boundary box to aspecialized numbered (RGB-based) tree growth strategy based on localnode proximity. This bijection function mapping (as has been describedand that is shown for a 2D example use case) typically is a one-timeoperation or is repeated infrequently; it does not need to be carriedout for every simulation, which is the next step and that is nowdescribed.

In particular, and after the mapping (metricize) operation, the restingcoordinates of the SAs (the particles) from the n-body simulation arethen used to find vertices on the network graph that most closely matchtheir respective coordinate values. The seed agents are then assigned tothese vertices. Thereafter, another diffusion process is executed, whichis now described. The purpose of this diffusion process is to grow theSA population onto the neighboring vertices, preferably based on thesuitability of the underlying vertex coordinate value (that wasidentified during the preferably one-time mapping operation). At eachtime step during this diffusion process, the agents occupying a vertexon the network graph evaluate their neighboring vertices to see if theyshould occupy these neighbors, e.g., based on the suitability of theircoordinate values (in RGB) relative to the coordinate values held on thevertices. If an agent from a different SA currently occupies the vertex,a negotiation is carried out to determine which SA population is bettersuited for that vertex. Thus, at each time step in this phase an SAtries to expand to adjacent NG vertices (while other SAs are doinglikewise), and thus the diffusion process facilitates NG territorycapture through swapping. Preferably, this local search strategy (ineffect a “land grab” process) is further augmented by historicalagent-to-vertex occupancy information. In particular, the longer thetime period that an agent occupies a NG vertex the more the coordinatevalues of the underlying vertices move toward the agent coordinates; ineffect, the agents “saturate” the vertices with their values, therebycreating a “history” of occupation (as in a pheromone). After a givennumber of iterations (time steps) grows the teams to some percentage(e.g., 50%), an Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm is then used tomigrate ill-suited teams to better regions of the graph, and then thegrowth process is restarted until completed (or otherwise terminated).

Returning to the 2D example, FIG. 11 depicts the initial seeding of theSAs in the NG based on their relative positions in the FDG solutionspace (namely, their corresponding coordinates on the vertices of theNG). As described above, and starting at an initial time step (t=0),each seed vertex then releases its embedded agents to the adjacentvertices to search for and achieve their required count (of totalembedded agents for the SA) while also taken into consideration theirneighbors' needs. This results in vertices being occupied and/orreleased depending on the scoring system used. Algorithms that may beused during this operation include, for example, ACO (e.g., MMAS,AShrank, COAC, and others), reaction diffusion models, BUBBLEframeworks, as well as other hybrid local search strategies. FIG. 11depicts the partitioning of the NG after the local search completes.This represents a final agent-to-resource space allocation (for the 2Dexample scenario).

Summarizing one preferred approach, and where the NG represents aphysical space (e.g., a building model), after the force directed graphalgorithm has been run, the resulting FDG solution is then mapped to a[255,255,255] cube so that each SA (agent team) is assigned an RGB colordepending on is three coordinates. After this, the set of fixed teams isplaced in its respective locations in the building model and a firstdiffusion algorithm is used to cover the RGB space in the 3D buildingmodel. The coverage of the RGB color space is guaranteed by fixing afinite set of points in the building model (the corner values and thecenter points on the partitions) and using them as sources that are keptfixed in addition to the colors corresponding to fixed teams. The firstdiffusion algorithm evolves the colors to seed the teams. Once thisfirst diffusion map is done, the last step in the process is to apply amulti-agent algorithm to grow the teams to their required size. To thisend, each team's (SA) color as obtained from the FDG is placed in itscorresponding vertex in the building according to the RGB diffusion map.This is the initial seeding for all teams (SAs). From there, a seconddiffusion process is started to grow teams to some percentage (e.g.,50%) of their required size (based on the number of embedded agents inthe respective team). Then, and after this first iteration, an AntColony Optimization (ACO) is then applied to the then-current placementresult to correct for any misplacement of the teams. A second iterationis then initiated to apply the final diffusion to grow the teams totheir full size. When the teams reach their full size, typically all ofeach team's embedded agents have been assigned to the physical resources(e.g., desks in the physical location as represented in the NG)).

As noted, the above description assumes a 3D solution space. As noted,this is not a limitation. The FDG is defined by and run in adimensionally-equivalent space. Thus, and as described, a 3D FDG isexecuted within the bounds of a 3D solution space such as a cube, whichin the preferred approach is a [255, 255, 255] color cube. Smaller orlarger-dimension solution spaces may be used, with the dimensionality ofthe solution space driving the FDG algorithm.

Referring back to the drawings, and in the example scenario that hasbeen described, FIG. 12 depicts the result of executing the multi-agentalgorithms (diffusion, node swapping, contraction and expansion)described, and wherein the required number of vertices have beenpopulated by each embedded agent group. FIGS. 13A and 13B depict how theseed coordinate values of the occupying agents update the underlyingcoordinates of the NG vertices. These values diffuse and update theunderlying coordinate mapping (updating FIG. 5) in preparation for anext evolution and SA seeding (FIG. 11).

The force-based physics space (the FDG) provides a significant advantagein that is spatially organizes nodes (each node representing a largerpopulation) based on their adjacency suitability. Typically, FDG nodeshave multiple edges to multiple nodes. As described, preferably physicalattractions and repulsions (based on agent team attributes) are used.During one type of FDG creation (involving node pairs), the magnitudesof vectors between all of the pairs of node are checked to ensure thatpairs of nodes with strong attractions are assigned small magnitudewhile those with strong repulsions are assigned larger magnitudes. Thisfacilitates scoring of the node pairs so that an appropriate time tofreeze the FDG in its solution space can be determined. When the FDGgraph is frozen, the mapping operation uses the temporarily frozen datapoints and analyzes them to identify regions, which are then mapped tothe NG. The seeding points for the NG are based on the resting positionsof the FDG nodes (relative to one another). During the follow-on agentsearch, a diffusion method is used to leave a trace of the previousevolution of the graph vertices so that the new agents can preferenceoccupying vertices previously occupied.

There is a significant advantage that is enabled by the initialdiffusion operation (that maps the FDG solution) to the RGB cube (in the3D embodiment). In particular, this mapping creates the basis forupdates from the n-body solution to pass directly to place seed agentson the network graph. This is particularly important, as it is quitelikely that new SAs will be added or deleted, or that SA counts willchange. This would be a typical scenario in the workspace planningscenario described below. Should a new SA be added/deleted, or should anindividual SA count change, the FDG provides a very efficient way tore-seed only the impacted SAs in the NG, after which the local search isthen re-run. This approach also leverages the history of the priorresource-to-vertices assignments to achieve a new solution requiring thefewest possible changes to the previous agent-to-resource assignments.

Importantly, seeding the NG with the FDG provides significantly improvedcomputational efficiency of a computing machine (or cluster) being usedby the system to perform the above-described computations and, inparticular, by avoiding local neighbor searching with respect to one ormore regions NG that otherwise would provide substantially equally-fitsolutions. Thus, the technique provides significant computationallyefficiencies in terms of using less processor and memory resources,thereby reducing the cost and increasing the processing efficiency ofthe overall simulation technique. This advantage in computation isrealized because the approach obviates random seeding, and it avoids thetendency of local searches (of the network graph) to become stuck issub-optimal regions or on plateaus where many solutions are equally fit.By executing the simulation after the network graph is first primed bythe agent-organized force directed graph, the system provides real-timeinteractive simulation(s) that generate accurate spatial insights forthe physical space. In operation, execution of the simulation outputsone or more live agent-to-resource layout options (e.g., using a webpage-based display) for instant scenario testing, strategic planning,and day-to-day use.

An Example Use Case—Allocating Agent Teams to Physical Office Facilities

By way of background, co-working is a style of work that involves ashared workplace, often an office, and independent activity. Hotdesking, which is also known as non-reservation-based hoteling, is anoffice organization system that involves multiple workers using a singlephysical work station or surface during different time periods; suchuse, however, is on a first come, first serve basis without booking orany sort of assignment process.

Co-working and flexible office operators provide shared workspacesas-a-service. While the co-working model has seen growth, most of thedemand is for allocated space. In co-working offices, hot desk andsingle allocated desk memberships typically are good values forindividual workers, such as independent contractors, who work on theirown. These types of solutions, however, work less well and are expensivewhen it comes to team space. In these situations, co-working operatorsstruggle to compete with traditional office leases, in part because theyoperate on a “per-desk” model, and coupled with the fact that companieswho use these services typically end up paying for more desks that areused by their workers on an average daily basis. While this problemmight be addressed by a service model whereby companies were charged forallocated space on a per-member (instead of per-desk) basis, the problemof allocating users to resources (e.g., desks) in such an environment ishighly-challenging due to the large number of changing variables (numberof users, frequency of use, number of desks, etc.) Thus, truly efficientmanagement of allocated space remains a challenge.

The technique of this disclosure may be used to address this problem.

In one example embodiment, a computing platform that implements thesimulation techniques described above provides for intelligent buildingmanagement that allocates space for dynamic organizations. Thecomputational solutions generated by the platform eliminate resourcewaste, and they enable total flexibility for agents to work morecollaboratively and effectively. In this embodiment, the platform isoperated “as-a-service” to provide intelligent building simulation thatallocates people and teams efficiently across large amounts of physicalspace in real-time. The platform automatically generates intelligentactionable solutions (agent-to-resource allocations) from sensor datathat indicates available physical resources, and agent requirements forthose resources. Utilization rates of the allocated space resources arefree to ebb and flow over time, and the agent-to-resource allocationscreated by the platform automatically and proactively evolve in responseto real use

FIG. 14 depicts a typical implementation environment. A service providerentity operates a computing platform and simulation engine 1400 of thisdisclosure. In one embodiment, the computing platform is used to providea co-working-as-a-service solution that efficiently allocates agents toresources of an allocated space that is being managed by the platform.In this approach, and as will be described, the NG represents a physicalspace (e.g., a building workspace) in which individuals areintelligently assigned to a team (an SA, as described above), andindividuals can be on multiple teams through a time period (a day, aweek, etc.). Using the above-described simulation technique, a team isthen assigned resources (typically a group of desks) to use in aphysical building location (as represented by the NG), and the number ofdesks assigned to the team can vary through the time period. Typically,the number of desks is significantly less than the number of personsassigned to the team (a team count).

Using the FDG-seeded NG simulation technique, the platform providesreal-time allocation solutions, strategic scenario planning tools, andthe like. One or more physical spaces (each an “allocated space”) areavailable (e.g., for “rent” or “lease” or “use”) from the platform. Tothis end, a “customer” of the platform (typically an enterprise) isprovided with an “assistant” application 1402 (e.g., configured as aweb-based or mobile device-based application) by which the customerobtains on-line access to the platform. The assistant applicationprovides tools and interfaces to enable the enterprise customer tomanage its forward looking allocated space needs. For example, and usingthe assistant application, an authorized user uploads and updates datadescribing the people (head-counts, team structures, schedules, etc.)and the building data (floor plans, desks and storage requirements) tobe managed. This “resource” data can be input manually, by integratingdata feeds directly from existing enterprise software, using applicationprogramming interfaces (APIs), and the like. In one embodiment, the dataidentifies the available resources that are available to be provisionedand configured in the allocated space. In a typical use case, a state ofa resource is identified by a sensor that is deployed discretely under adesk in the space. Sensors 1404 typically are wireless-based, and theyreport resource state data (e.g., real-time desk data) back to theplatform, e.g., via local WiFi systems that collect such data anddeliver it over one or more communication networks. The sensor data maybe augmented by other resource inventory data provided by the enterprisecustomer.

As also depicted, the other primary input to the platform comprises userworkspace requirements, which are typically input by end users (or“agents”) via mobile applications 1406. Thus, using a mobile app, anindividual member of a team can input his or her workspace requirements(e.g., days and hours working, team identification, etc.), and thesedirect workforce inputs are collected by platform to update requirementsfor a team that includes the member. As will be seen, these teamrequirements are leveraged by the platform to drive intelligentevolution of agent-to-resource allocations according to this disclosure.

In a preferred embodiment, the technique is provided by a simulationengine. A representative implementation of the simulation engine is acomputer program executing in one or more hardware processors, e.g., viaa cloud-accessible service. The engine may be executed in other ways,e.g., as a standalone solution, in a virtualized environment, in ahybrid (on-premises-cloud) environment, and the like. Enterprisecustomers obtain and use the assistant application to identify,provision and manage their allocated space; end users use their mobileapps to identify their individual use requirements. The simulationengine takes as input(s) the data describing the space, the end userrequirements, etc. to derive the NG, executes agent-to-workspaceresource simulation(s) using the FDG-seeded NG, and then provides theoutput(s) to the enterprise and its end users. Simulations typically arecarried out for an allocated space continuously and periodically, oron-demand as needed, preferably on a subscription-basis. As the agentteam evolves, a simulation is re-executed, but with the addedcomputationally benefit (as described above) of a tightly-constrainedlocal search.

The simulation engine may run simulations on behalf of multipleenterprises, spaces, or combinations thereof. Communications with theplatform preferably are secured end-to-end.

Marketplace—Discovering and Sharing Unused Space

In a variant embodiment, the service provider operates the computingplatform described above as an on-line marketplace (e.g., a website ormore generally a “service”) for participating entities to easilydiscover and opportunistically-share unused space, sometimes referred toherein as “lost” space or desks. A participating entity typically is acustomer or client of the service provider. The platform provides aservice by which unused (or under-utilized) space in a customer'sbuilding or facility can be quickly discovered and then made available(typically to one or more other participating entities) on-demand. Thisoperating scenario is now described by way of example.

It is assumed that the “allocated spaces” include multiple physicallocations, such as multiple buildings located throughout a particularcity, region, country or other geographic area. Multiple entities(typically enterprise customers) have access to a system in the mannerpreviously described. A typical implementation is a marketplaceconfigured as a set of webpages of a website, although this is not alimitation. Using a registration page of the website, a participatingCompany A sets up a profile that, for example, includes a set ofattributes describing its business, its collaborationneeds/requirements, and an allocated space opportunity it has or mayhave available for sharing with other entities. For example, Company Amay have the following set of attributes: industry (e.g., children'stoys), collaboration needs (e.g., software engineers), collaborationexpertise (e.g., marketing to children), current geographic location(s)(e.g., Office location in San Francisco), and an office price comfortlevel (e.g., $6 ft²/month) representing an amount it is willing toaccept to lease (or sub-let) its available space. The price comfortlevel may be expressed as a price per ft² or per desk. These attributesare merely representative, and others (times, dates, user restrictions,confidentiality or other security requirements/needs, etc.) may be used.Based on these inputs (and the similar inputs from other participatingentities), the platform assigns a tag to one or more attribute(s) in theprofile, preferably using match logic, as described below in moredetail. Match logic may be implemented as software executing inhardware.

After the enterprise customer sets up its profile, the platformdetermines a set of one or more other enterprise entities that are usingthe platform and that the system deems to be compatible with theenterprise customer (e.g., company A) for office/desk space sharing.Thus, e.g., the matching logic may identify other customers that arelocated in similar or adjacent industries, that have similarcollaboration needs or expertise, that have similar information securityrequirements, that have expressed an interest in obtaining desks at orclose to the offering price, combinations of the above, and the like. Asa result of executing the matching logic, preferably the platformidentifies one or more other platform customers that may then be matchedwith Company A. Each of the one or more other customers that have beenmatched in this manner are then sent a request to determine whether theymight be interested in becoming associated or partnered with Company Afor potential sharing of physical space-on-demand. If and when Company B(who has been matched with Company A) accepts the request, the platformprovides the entities with a link to an online agreement; the entitiesthen execute the agreement and, as such, become associated to oneanother in the system. In a similar manner, other participating entitiesregister with the platform, and the platform saves the acceptedentity-to-entity associations (each an enterprise associate or partner).

Typically, each platform customer uses the platform and the graph-basedsimulation technique previously described. Thus, e.g., Company A has aworkspace in a first building, and that workspace is defined by anetwork graph that has been seeded by a particle-based system (the forcedirected graph) associated with Company A's agent teams; similarly,Company B has a workspace in a second building, and that workspace isdefined by a network graph that has been seeded by its particle-basedsystem associated with Company B's agent teams, and so forth for one ormore additional platform customers. The notion of separate buildings isthe usual situation, but it is not intended to be limiting, as Company Aand Company B may even have distinct workspaces in the same building. Inaddition, typically the simulation being run for a Company with respectto its network graph is carried out continuously, e.g., to account forchanges in the Company team configurations.

According to the technique herein, a particular simulation for aparticular Company's workspace (e.g., Company B) is carried out with anadditional seed/particle factor, namely, a particle representing a “newteam” that originates with any entity (e.g., Company A). The notion hereis to place Company A's “new team” into Company B's workspace. Thisprocess is now described by way of further example.

In particular, assume now that Company A determines it needs an officein Central London for a project team for a given time period, e.g.,three months. It accesses the platform and makes a request (e.g., usinga secure webpage form) to obtain allocated space for the new team. Therequest includes a desired team size, a desired location (e.g., asavailable from a list), and one or more ordered priorities, such as“first priority” (e.g., location), “second priority” (e.g.,collaboration needs), “third priority” (e.g., ability of the enterpriseassociate to offer expertise), etc. Preferably, the system exposes therelevant data from the information saved from the enterprise profiles.Company A enters the request into the system, and the system thenlocates space available to meet the request with respect to one or moreworkspaces of other participating entities. Preferably, thisdetermination occurs as follows.

A “new team” seed particle is generated corresponding to Company A'srequirements. As noted above, it is assumed that the platform is running(or is controlled to run) simulations for Company B, Company C, etc.,corresponding to the workplaces associated with those one or more otherparticipating entities. According to this disclosure, A's new team seedparticle is placed in one or more other force directed graphs, such thatthe simulation(s) are then executed in a manner to accommodate theparticle. In this manner, the platform attempts to allocate the new team(from a first participating entity) into the workspace(s) associatedwith one or more other participating entities. Thus, in the exampledescribed, if Company A is matched with Companies B, C and D, theCompany A new team particle is seeded to each of the distinct forcedirected graphs associated with the Company B, C and D network graphs.The simulation(s) are then executed (or re-executed, or continued, asthe case may be) to allocate Company A's new team within theworkspace(s) of Company B, C and D.

To this end, preferably each team (particle) in a building particlesimulation has various attributes, e.g., inter-company co-locationattributes, intra-company co-location attributes, number of entities theparticle represents, desk type, desk cost, and the like. Aninter-company co-location attribute is a tag relating to other teams inthe company; a same tag creates a strong particle attraction. Anintra-company co-location attribute identifies one or more teams thatcan be situated beside external company teams. The number of entitiesthe particle represents corresponds to the number of people in the team.Using Company A's new team particle, a test scenario is then executed.In particular, the particle simulation for each building (i.e., the FDGfor Company B's building, the FDG for Company C's building, and the FDGfor Company D's building) is updated to include Company A's new teamparticle. In particular, the team particle is seeded on a node “n” ineach respective building FDG. Using the simulation technique previouslydescribed, the agents then run their search/swap protocols to allocateCompany A's new team to the respective workspace. The result(s) of thetest scenario are saved and, as necessary, updated periodically (e.g.,daily based on internal changes at the respective building against whichthe simulation is being executed).

A test scenario for a particular building (e.g., Company B) may providea better option for Company A's new team than another building (e.g.,Company C or D). The platform may utilize one or more criteria forranking the test scenario results. In this example, the system hasidentified Company B as being an acceptable choice. The system thennotifies Company B to determine whether Company B is willing to provideCompany A space (and, in particular, the allocation identified by theplatform). Thus, e.g., the system may send a notification as follows:“You have received a team space request from Company A. They can pay$60,000 for space for 3 months. We have found them space with minimaldisruption to your existing teams at your facility. Press here to acceptand confirm their move-in date.”

In the example scenario, one or more of the other entities (e.g.,Company C, D, etc.) may also receive similar notifications. Based on thereplies if any, the system notifies Company A of the available offers,e.g., identifying the offering Company, its location, its collaborationexpertise, the proposed move-in date, and the like Company A thenaccepts a particular offer, and the system notifies the accepted entity,e.g., “Your partner Company A has accepted; press here to send teamallocation updates to impacted teams.”

Once a team space request has been accepted, the platform ends thesimulation(s) that may then be on-going. In this manner, the platformprovides a robust and efficient way to create space on-demand for aguest (the participating entity's new team) at a host, thus obviatingthe host having to statically reserve space to be used for sublet.

In one embodiment, the matching logic works as follows. Given a tag thatis shared by two entities, a corresponding attraction score is assignedto the tag match. A strength score for each pair of tags shared betweentwo particles (or, more generally, nodes in a graph database) is summedand creates a particle-to-particle attraction (edge length). Theparticle system is brought to near equilibrium (a predetermined minimumenergy score). A resulting particle cloud is then analyzed (e.g., withk-means or other known machine learning-based n-dimensional datapartitioning techniques) to find matching one or more matchingenterprises (partners). Additional entities (e.g., that are “close” tomatching) may be identified by abstracting spatial proximities toprovide an extended (or different) data set from which company partnersmay then be determined. Preferably, the matching logic leverages knowngraph database techniques and functionality to sort the matching inassociation with the resource-to-space allocation technique of thisdisclosure.

In the above-described example scenario, the platform providesappropriate display pages (e.g., a registration page, a partneracceptance page, an office space request form page, an office spaceresponse form page, etc.) that are configured to be rendered in a webapplication, a mobile app, or the like. Authorized users (e.g., companyadministrators) interact with these pages, preferably over secure links.In an alternative embodiment, and in lieu of direct user interaction,registration, request and response data is provided to and from theplatform in an automated manner via application interfaces (APIs).

While it is preferred to determine partner associations in advance (orin some other off-line manner), the platform may execute the partneridentification function in real-time in response to receiving a requestfor office space from a participating entity.

It is not required that the test scenario (the running of the graphsimulation) be executed continuously or periodically, although this isthe preferred operation, as it allows the system to receive updatedavailability data from the building(s) that are the targets of thepotential match.

In the marketplace scenario, there may be multiple matching hosts (e.g.,Company B, C and D). The system may provide an auction-like mechanism toenable the hosts to compete with one another to receive Company A's newteam. When there are multiple matching hosts, there may be a mechanismimplemented to prefer one host over another. As another variant, if oneor more of the test scenarios cannot be satisfied for some reason, thesystem may provide a way to relax constraints so that an allocation ofthe new team may still be accommodated.

The particle system herein may use a construct analogous to the forcedirected graph, e.g., a quantum-based particle system.

The graph optimization and allocation technique of this disclosureprovides significant advantages. The space management platform asdescribed leverages network graph-based optimizations, potentiallyaugmented by machine learning, to efficiently manage allocated team deskspace in a workspace environment. The simulation engine processes sensordata and evolving team requirements to ensure that teams get exactly theallocated space they need. By increasing efficiencies in this manner,service providers, flexible office providers, and others can provideco-working solutions for their customers but no longer have to pricesuch solutions on a per desk basis; instead, these providers have a wayto charge on a per active member basis, thereby increasing density anddriving margin for these types of solutions.

The approach herein has significant advantages over techniques such ashot desking, wherein desks are not assigned and people use what isavailable on a first come, first serve basis. Hot desking has been asource of significant employee anxiety and frustration in the workforce,and the technique of this disclosure (wherein people are intelligentlyassigned to a team based in part on the force directed graph) provides asmart desk assignment that addresses the problems associated with theprior art. As has been described, in the approach herein people areintelligently assigned to a team, and people can be on multiple teamsthrough the relevant time period. The team is then assigned a group ofdesks to use, and the number of desks assigned to the team can varythrough the time period. As also noted, typically the number of desks isfar less than the full team count, and this enables much higher densityof use and obviates per desk pricing models.

More generally, the approach herein provides for an intelligent buildingmanagement platform that allocates space for dynamic organizations. Itenables smart desk assignment based on dynamic team structures andnetworks of collaborators. The approach eliminates waste, saves money,and enables total flexibility for people to work more collaborativelyand effectively. By executing the simulation(s) in the manner described,the platform immediately reveals and consolidates pockets of wastedspace, and it creates a step-by-step roadmap on how to best to re-usethat valuable real estate. The simulation(s) are carried out inreal-time and in a computationally-efficient manner, thereby increasingdesk utilization without stressful hot desking or difficult to usebooking apps. Instead of spending hours reviewing and attempting tomanage desk utilization data, the platform automatically generatesintelligent actionable solutions from the data. In this way, utilizationrates are free to ebb and flow over time, but the agent-to-resourceallocations automatically and proactively evolve in response to realuse. Changes to headcounts and teams can be managed instantly byexecuting a new simulation, and thus the platform can find the best wayto accommodate each team with the least amount of disruption to theexisting space allocations across the building (or even a largerreal-estate portfolio being managed by the system). The platform enablesuser to re-think space allocations without specialized space planners ordesigners. The simulation output may be augmented to include moveinformation for all personnel that are affected, thereby helping themlocate their new workspace(s).

As noted above, the technique herein is not limited to theagent-to-workspace allocation example. Another example scenario, aspreviously noted, involves allocation of computing workloads toprocessing units in a distributed computing environment. Furtherallocation example scenarios are identified below, although a skilledperson will appreciate that the FDG-seeding approach herein provides aframework or methodology that can be used to provide optimized solutionsfor a graph partitioned-data set, irrespective of what that data setrepresents (in the real world).

Enabling Technologies

One or more functions of the computing platform of this disclosure maybe implemented in a cloud-based architecture. As is well-known, cloudcomputing is a model of service delivery for enabling on-demand networkaccess to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g.networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage,applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidlyprovisioned and released with minimal management effort or interactionwith a provider of the service. Available services models that may beleveraged in whole or in part include: Software as a Service (SaaS) (theprovider's applications running on cloud infrastructure); Platform as aservice (PaaS) (the customer deploys applications that may be createdusing provider tools onto the cloud infrastructure); Infrastructure as aService (IaaS) (customer provisions its own processing, storage,networks and other computing resources and can deploy and run operatingsystems and applications).

The platform may comprise co-located hardware and software resources, orresources that are physically, logically, virtually and/orgeographically distinct. Communication networks used to communicate toand from the platform services may be packet-based, non-packet based,and secure or non-secure, or some combination thereof.

More generally, the techniques described herein are provided using a setof one or more computing-related entities (systems, machines, processes,programs, libraries, functions, or the like) that together facilitate orprovide the described functionality described above. In a typicalimplementation, a representative machine on which the software executescomprises commodity hardware, an operating system, an applicationruntime environment, and a set of applications or processes andassociated data, that provide the functionality of a given system orsubsystem. As described, the functionality may be implemented in astandalone machine, or across a distributed set of machines.

Typically, but without limitation, a client device is a mobile device,such as a smartphone, tablet, or wearable computing device. Such adevice comprises a CPU (central processing unit), computer memory, suchas RAM, and a drive. The device software includes an operating system(e.g., Google® Android™, or the like), and generic support applicationsand utilities. The device may also include a graphics processing unit(GPU).

Each above-described process preferably is implemented in computersoftware as a set of program instructions executable in one or moreprocessors, as a special-purpose machine.

Representative machines on which the subject matter herein is providedmay be Intel Pentium-based computers running a Linux or Linux-variantoperating system and one or more applications to carry out the describedfunctionality. One or more of the processes described above areimplemented as computer programs, namely, as a set of computerinstructions, for performing the functionality described.

While the above describes a particular order of operations performed bycertain embodiments of the invention, it should be understood that suchorder is exemplary, as alternative embodiments may perform theoperations in a different order, combine certain operations, overlapcertain operations, or the like. References in the specification to agiven embodiment indicate that the embodiment described may include aparticular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodimentmay not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, orcharacteristic.

While the disclosed subject matter has been described in the context ofa method or process, the subject matter also relates to apparatus forperforming the operations herein. This apparatus may be a particularmachine that is specially constructed for the required purposes, or itmay comprise a computer otherwise selectively activated or reconfiguredby a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer programmay be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is notlimited to, any type of disk including an optical disk, a CD-ROM, and amagnetic-optical disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory(RAM), a magnetic or optical card, or any type of media suitable forstoring electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer systembus.

A given implementation of the computing platform is software thatexecutes on a hardware platform running an operating system such asLinux. A machine implementing the techniques herein comprises a hardwareprocessor, and non-transitory computer memory holding computer programinstructions that are executed by the processor to perform theabove-described methods.

The functionality may be implemented with other application layerprotocols besides HTTP/HTTPS, or any other protocol having similaroperating characteristics.

There is no limitation on the type of computing entity that mayimplement the client-side or server-side of the connection. Anycomputing entity (system, machine, device, program, process, utility, orthe like) may act as the client or the server.

While given components of the system have been described separately, oneof ordinary skill will appreciate that some of the functions may becombined or shared in given instructions, program sequences, codeportions, and the like. Any application or functionality describedherein may be implemented as native code, by providing hooks intoanother application, by facilitating use of the mechanism as a plug-in,by linking to the mechanism, and the like.

The platform functionality may be co-located or various parts/componentsmay be separately and run as distinct functions, perhaps in one or morelocations (over a distributed network).

While the technique of this disclosure finds particular applicability inthe flexible office environment, this is not a limitation. The approachmay be used in many other operating environments involving entityorganization, e.g., seat booking (in theaters, for airline travel,etc.), organizing products in a retail environment (e.g., where productsare agents that have inter-relationships based on likelihood of consumerpurchase), organizing the layout of manufactured products (siliconchips), social networks (the community detection problem), vehiclerouting, biological networks, protein construction, image processing,materials science (e.g., with the nodes corresponding to atoms in aquantum meta-material), and many other potential applications. Forexample, consider a warehouse full of products that are organized tobest support quick retrieval and shipping based on customer profiles. Inthis scenario, the warehouse is represented by the NG, with each shelfcontaining several vertices. With the simulation engine, a company canpinpoint where a new product sits within their product ecosystem (theSAs) and then instantly make room for a new product in the NG with theleast amount of disruption to the existing products already assigned tothe rest of the vertices. As noted above, this is a particular advantageof the mapping operation, which enables the new product to be added(changing an existing SA configuration, or perhaps adding a new SA thatincludes the new product) by making only a marginal change in seedpoints, thereby ensuring that the local search protocol results in avery similar solution with only the required disruption to accommodatethe new/modified SA. This is the technique exploited for adding newteams in the building management solution, wherein when a new team isadded (or others shrink or grow) the simulation finds the best locationfor making changes while requiring the least disruption to other teams.

The above-described marketplace and the associated particle-to-agentprocessing may also be used for other purposes, e.g., a datingapplication whereby the participants are individuals.

What is claimed is as follows:

1. A computer program product in a non-transitory computer-readablemedium, the computer program product comprising computer programinstructions executable in a computing cluster and configured to assignfirst entities to second entities during execution of a simulation, thecomputing cluster comprising a set of processing entities, wherein atleast some of the processing entities are in communication with oneanother, the second entities being represented by a network graph have aset of vertices, and a set of edges, comprising: program code configuredto spatially organize a set of seed particles into a force directedgraph; and program code configured to execute a node swapping localsearch protocol against the network graph that is seeded using the forcedirected graph; wherein seeding the network graph using the forcedirected graph improves a processing efficiency of the computing clusterby minimizing communications among processing entities during executionof the simulation.
 2. The computer program product as described in claim1 wherein the computer program instructions further include: programcode configured to re-seed given ones of the set of seed particles intoan adjusted force directed graph; and program code configured tore-execute the node swapping local search protocol using the adjustedforce directed graph.
 3. The computer program product as described inclaim 2 wherein the computer program instructions further include:program code configured to adjust the force directed graph to create theadjusted force directed graph based on one of: removing a seed particle,adding a seed particle, and modifying a seed particle.
 4. The computerprogram product as described claim 2 wherein the computer programinstructions further include: program code configured to store a traceof a first entity-to-second entity mapping generated upon an initialexecution of the node swapping local search protocol; and wherein theprogram code to re-execute the node swapping local search protocol alsouses the trace so that additional first entities are preferentiallyassigned network graph nodes previously occupied by first entities. 5.The computer program product as described in claim 1 wherein the firstentity is a computing job, and the second entity is a processing unit,and wherein the computer program instructions further include: programcode configured to output a computing job-to-processing unit associationderived from executing the node swapping local search protocol that isseeded using the force directed graph.
 6. The computer program productas described in claim 1 wherein a seed particle represents a populationof first entities to be assigned to a vertex in the network graph. 7.The computer program product as described in claim 6 wherein a firstentity is an agent, and the node in the network graph is a resourceassociated with a physical location.
 8. An apparatus comprising a set ofprocessing entities, wherein at least some of the processing entitiesare in communication with one another, comprising: a processor; andcomputer memory holding computer program instructions comprising programcode executed by the processor to execute a node swapping local searchprotocol against a network graph that is seeded using a force directedgraph to generate an assignment of first entities to second entitiesduring a simulation, the second entities representing vertices in thenetwork graph; wherein seeding the network graph using the forcedirected graph improves a processing efficiency of the apparatus byminimizing communications among processing entities during execution ofthe simulation.
 9. The apparatus as described in claim 8 wherein thecomputer program instructions further include program code executed bythe processor to translate a relative coordinate system of a solutionspace of the force directed graph to a number of vertices in the networkgraph.
 10. The apparatus as described in claim 9 wherein translation ofthe relative coordinate system of the solution space of the forcedirected graph to the number of vertices generates a color map.
 11. Theapparatus as described in claim 10 wherein the computer programinstructions further include program code executed by the processor touse the color map to generate an adjusted force directed graph andre-seed the network graph with the adjusted forced directed graph.